Using Model - Pre WWI

About Uncle Sam

James Montgomery Flagg (my Grandfather) created the original Uncle Sam "I Want You". Although most researches will refer to JMF as the model of his original Uncle Sam, nothing could be farther from the truth. My Mother tried her adult life to correct this error, and I will carry on this monumental task.

In 1916, JMF reluctantly accepted a 4th of July project by Leslie Magazine, and eventually found his Uncle Sam one rainy night on a train bound for Parris Island, where he was to unveil a portrait of the Commandant.

His "symbol of our country" was a young, roughly 17 year old, Marine, which he considered the finest branch of our armed forces. He was able to acquire a 24 hour pass for this "boot" not normally allowed off base, and he aged his model's adolescent face by forty years and turned a circus clown's costume into symbolic dignity (as told to me and written by his daughter, my mother, Faith).

This cover was eventually made into a recruiting poster, at the request of the State Dept, and is now recognized as the most famous war poster of our time.

By WWII, JMF had ironically begun to look remarkably like his original Uncle Sam, and he did indeed use his mirror image in several new posters. When FDR is quoted as saying "saving model hire" in a personal letter to JMF, he is referring to the 2nd World War posters.

Faith would say, "I thought you might find the facts more fun than the fantasies."

QuickBooks Affiliate

Home Audio/Theatre

Saturday, October 31, 2009

While many of us struggle with the situation in Afghanistan, we are at war and a decision must be made now. Did the world wait for Hitler's election, or the anointing of Horihito? This man uses one excuse after another for his indecisions, but our men and women are in harm's way, and there is no excuse this time.

While this president rallys, lobbys for Olympics, parties, campaigns, golfs, parties some more, our men and women are dying on foreign soil. Whaddyasaymrpresident?

A Mother of 12 writes an excellent piece in PajamasMedia:

A Self-Sacrificing Soldier, a Self-Interested PresidentA soldier gives his life in Afghanistan, while the commander in chief goes politicking.by Barbara Curtis, October 30, 2009

The last time he was home, he left his dog tags with his father.

Did Stephan Mace somehow sense he wouldn’t be coming back? It was late August, and in spite of grave concerns about the safety of his unit — or maybe because of those concerns — Mace was anxious to get back to help his buddies.

Stationed at a remote Afghanistan outpost near the Pakistan border (see map and photos), the army specialist and his fellow soldiers were all too aware of their vulnerability. Barely a year before in a similarly isolated spot, a four-hour firefight left nine Americans dead and 27 wounded during the battle of Wanat. Plans were reportedly underway to withdraw from Kamdesh as part of a military realignment to concentrate troops in more populated areas.

But Mace and seven of his brothers in arms didn’t live to see that day. On October 3, Combat Outpost Keating was attacked from all sides by insurgents who had built an arsenal in the local mosque. (According to our rules of engagement, mosques are off-limits for weapon checks.)

Although our side — 75 Americans and 25 Afghanis — was outnumbered three to one, they fought valiantly:

One of the commanders in the Keating fight rejected any suggestion that the battle was a defeat and was frustrated that it could appear that way, especially since he estimated that as many as 100 to 150 attackers were killed in the fight.

Lt. Col. Jimmy Blackmon, who commanded the Apache battalion that flew to Keating’s defense, told ABC News, “Knowing that American soldiers fought all day long, heroic valorous actions all day long, and a headline would lead the average person to believe that we may have lost that fight. Unequivocally untrue.”

Read a full account of the battle and the subsequent troop withdrawal at ABC News.

Mace’s flag-draped coffin was flown home on October 11 and met by his grieving mother. She accompanied him on his final flight to a private airport near his home town, where a motorcade was formed to bear his body home.

On that crisp fall Sunday morning, along the 13 miles from Leesburg, but especially in Purcellville, we gathered to pay our respects. The war suddenly seemed so near we could almost hear the shots, smell the smoke, feel the ground shake beneath our feet.

At his funeral, speakers recalled a true native son, remembering Stephan as a child in and out of their homes and their hearts, as a young man who loved adventure, as a committed Christian, and as a dedicated soldier who loved his unit like a “band of brothers.”

A general presented Stephan’s mother with the six medals — including a Bronze Star and Purple Heart — Mace had earned for his heroism in battle. Bagpipes keened “Amazing Grace.” A week later Army Specialist Stephan Lee Mace was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery.

In interviews, Stephan’s grandfather recounted his wanting to be a soldier from the time he was a little boy. His father has expressed bitterness at the military situation which left the unit at Outpost Keating “like sitting ducks.” His mother has been a silent but powerful icon of grief.

Is Stephan Mace — or the other seven Fort Carson soldiers killed October 3 — even remotely on Obama’s radar? Does he care at all?

Mace’s actions showed that his oath was not taken in vain. He was willing to lay down his life for others. Obama’s actions, by contrast, seem to indicate that our country’s defense and the protection of our men and women in uniform are his last priority, what with a schedule crowded with health care campaigning, DNC fundraising (22 events in nine months, compared to Bush’s eight in 12), Olympic lobbying, special interest group appeals, lavish White House parties, and golf.

Though his title is commander in chief, Obama had no time to consult with General McChrystal until embarrassed by the general’s response to an interview question that the president had spoken to him only once in 70 days. The general was quickly summoned for a 25-minute meeting/photo op/dressing down on Air Force One when the president landed in Copenhagen.

McChrystal’s request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan has been put on the back burner as Obama postures, claiming he needs more time to determine. A strange position for the man who took over banks and a car company in a heartbeat — and wanted to do the same for the health care industry.

Obama campaigned on the promise to get our troops out of Iraq and to prosecute a more effective war in Afghanistan. The lives of our men and women in uniform are no longer Bush’s responsibility. They are now Obama’s responsibility, yet he seems to be utterly detached from the results of his indecision.

In recent weeks, his focus seems to be on his personal “enemies list” (Fox News, Rush, Glenn) and off the deadly enemies growing ever more emboldened as they observe our self-indulgent and preoccupied commander in chief.

Shame on you, Mr. President! Pull the plug on the parties and White House excess! Get down to business, meet with your military, and lead! Bring our troops home or give them the support they need to succeed.

Barbara Curtis is a wife, mother of 12, and author of nine books, including Reaching the Left from the Right: Talking About Social Issues with People Who Don't Think Like You. Visit her at http://www.barbaracurtis.com/ or at her blog http://www.mommylife.net/. Her fourth son will begin Marines OCS in January.

We are on the verge of taking on the largest entitlement program in our history -- government run health care, unless we step up to the plate and voice our rejection. The major ramification is two-fold: government intrusion into our health decisions, and increasing our national debt to unsustainable depths.

This has to stop. The Heritage Foundation writes:

How Government Spending Hurts National Securityby Amanda Reinecker, October 30, 2009

America is one of the strongest, wealthiest and freest nations on earth; she is largely in control of her own fate. Therefore, any real threat against America will likely come from within. Today, one of the main internal threats is crushing government debt.

Unlike in times past when the nation was saddled with exorbitant deficits, today's imbalance is long-term and will heavily burden future generations. And this financial shortfall will wreak havoc on our national security. That's because the more money we commit to ever-expanding big-government programs, the less we have for defense.

Holmes outlines the dangers we face if the nation continues down this track of runaway spending:

The U.S. military might be unable to protect a sea lane vital to trade and military supply lines. We might be unable to suppress an enemy regime that launches a terrorist attack against us. And absent the great American economic engine, we might lack the resources to stay on the cutting edge of technology, leaving our soldiers vulnerable to being matched or even trumped on the battlefield by better-equipped foes.

Maintaining our superpower status requires reining in our out-of-control spending on entitlement programs, the main driver of our long-term debts. As Heritage experts have long argued, this entitlement spending is among the greatest domestic policy challenge our nation faces. That's why we have included reforming programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as key goals of our 10-year Leadership for America Campaign.

America currently faces many external threats. But unless we address these serious spending problems from within, we will not be adequately prepared to face those from without.

Health care update

The House health care "reform" bill introduced this week by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sets a new all-time record: 1,990 pages. Just in time for Halloween, the House's latest version of the bill paints a scary picture for our economy and our nation's fiscal future. Heritage's Conn Carroll reports that "the bill purports to cost only $1.05 trillion over the first ten years and is paid for by over $700 billion in tax increases and cuts to Medicare Advantage and Medicare prescription drug payments." So more taxes and more spending -- and that just lays the groundwork for a complete government takeover of the health care industry.

The Senate Finance Committee plans to saddle middle- and low-income taxpayers with roughly a quarter of the costs of its $829 billion health care "reform" proposal. These cost will be imposed on them through a "misguided excise tax on insurance plans" that will cost upwards of $200 billion over ten years, Heritage tax policy analyst Curtis Dubay reports. This tax is in effect no different than an increase in income taxes -- so if it becomes law it would break the President's promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

A better idea would be to cap the amount of a health plan that's tax free -- and return the difference in lower income taxes. This reform, Dubay writes, would realign incentives and "ultimately reduce heath care costs without growing government further." Visit FixHealthCarePolicy.com to learn more about Heritage's health care reform alternatives.

The Left attacks school choice

The Left is working hard to block parental choice in education. For example, the effective D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has enabled thousands of parents to send their children to safer schools where they can receive a better education, is under attack in Congress.

Even Attorney General Eric Holder is on the offensive against this school choice program. Heritage education expert Lindsey Burke reports that earlier this week, Holder asked a former Washington, D.C. lawmaker to stop running a television advertisement supporting the program and criticizing the Department of Education's decision to rescind scholarships for 216 young District residents.

Americans deserve to know about the success of such programs and the need to protect them from the political forces that endanger them. That's why Heritage has produced a new documentary, Let Me Rise. We're taking the message of the students and families that benefit from this successful program and bringing it directly to those who have the power to preserve it.

The film is part of Heritage's comprehensive effort under our 10-year Leadership for America campaign to strengthen American education by empowering parents to choose a safe and effective school for their children. Every child in America -- not just those who earn the goodwill of Congress or Washington bureaucrats -- deserves the opportunity to receive a quality education.

This is a good sign for true conservatives who want a return to the conservative base. We have been asleep at the wheel while both parties have taken drastic steps to the left. We have counted on congress and government to do the things they were elected to do, and in the process have created a monster.

This monster is on the verge of taking over our freedom and 'Fundamentally Transforming America'. Most Americans, in their wildest imagination, were not hearing what this man was saying, and over the last few decades, the left has been laying the groundwork for this takeover.

We cannot continue to conduct our lives and not be involved in our government. Power is a sickness, which is why our Founding Fathers constructed our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights in such a way as to prevent absolute power. But, if we do not watch government and protect it, we will lose it.

RedState reports this Breaking News:

SCOZZAFAVA DROPS OUTby Erick Erickson, October 31, 2009

In New York's 23rd Congressional District, Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava has withdrawn from the race, leaving only the conservative, Doug Hoffman, versus the Democrat, Bill Owens.

The Republican Establishment in Washington, D.C. spent over $900,000.00 to elect Dede Scozzafava, who today abandons the race.

How much more impact could that money have had if the GOP had listened to its base?

Relationships between the Republican establishment in Washington and the conservative movement are in rubble. Thanks to Pete Sessions, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, NOT Doug Hoffman, there is new inspiration for a third party movement to challenge the GOP - a movement that will only help the Democrats.

Good men in the GOP are now going to be challenged in primaries because of the ill-will the NRCC has generated in New York's 23rd Congressional District.

Make no mistake about it, the NRCC and the RNC must shoulder the blame for this fiasco. As has now been reported and confirmed, it was the Beltway Elite who pressured the New York GOP to choose Scozzafava.

I have said all along that victory for the GOP base in NY-23 was a Scozzafava defeat. We should, however, rally to Doug Hoffman and help him win. Notwithstanding that, the time is now to be magnanimous in victory, but we must demand accountability.

Someone, more than one person, must be fired for the Republican botching of NY-23. Heads must roll lest this happen again.

And John Cornyn and the National Republican Senatorial Committee better be paying attention, see e.g. Charlie Crist v. Marco Rubio in Florida.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Does this man ever take responsibility for anything? Better yet, does he ever make a decision harder than what tie to wear? How long did it take him to appoint his cabinet? Now we know why he voted present in his brief stint as a Junior Senator.

We won't even touch the Afghanistan decision yet to be made, but it's clear this man has no spine. Charles Krauthammer write another piece about our wishy-washy president from Real Clear Politics.

"Niki, I'm dying. Don't have much to leave you. Just three envelopes. Open them, one at a time, when you get into big trouble."

A few years later, first crisis. Khrushchev opens envelope 1: "Blame everything on me. Uncle Joe."

A few years later, a really big crisis. Opens envelope 2: "Blame everything on me. Again. Good luck, Uncle Joe."

Third crisis. Opens envelope 3: "Prepare three envelopes."

In the Barack Obama version, there are 50 or so such blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn't blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad -- everything but swine flu.

It's as if Obama's presidency hasn't really started. He's still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to "long years of drift" in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.

This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own "comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an off-the-cuff decision. "My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats," the president assured us. "We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations" and "with members of Congress. "

Obama is obviously unhappy with the path he himself chose in March. Fine. He has every right -- indeed duty -- to reconsider. But what Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy.

There is nothing new here. The history of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is a considered readjustment of policies that have failed. In each war, quick initial low-casualty campaigns toppled enemy governments. In the subsequent occupation stage, two policy choices presented themselves: the light or heavy "footprint."

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we initially chose the light footprint. For obvious reasons: less risk and fewer losses for our troops, while reducing the intrusiveness of the occupation and thus the chances of creating an anti-foreigner backlash that would fan an insurgency.

This was the considered judgment of our commanders at the time, most especially Centcom commander (2003-2007) Gen. John Abizaid. And Abizaid was no stranger to the territory. He speaks Arabic and is a scholar of the region. The overriding idea was that the light footprint would minimize local opposition.

It was a perfectly reasonable assumption, but it proved wrong. The strategy failed. Not just because the enemy proved highly resilient but because the allegiance of the population turned out to hinge far less on resentment of foreign intrusiveness (in fact the locals came to hate the insurgents -- al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan -- far more than us) than on physical insecurity, which made them side with the insurgents out of sheer fear.

What they needed, argued Gen. David Petraeus against much Pentagon brass opposition, was population protection, i.e., a heavy footprint.

In Iraq, the heavy footprint -- also known as the surge -- dramatically reversed the fortunes of war. In Afghanistan, where it took longer for the Taliban to regroup, the failure of the light footprint did not become evident until more recently when an uneasy stalemate began to deteriorate into steady Taliban advances.

That's where we are now in Afghanistan. The logic of a true counterinsurgency strategy there is that whatever resentment a troop surge might occasion pales in comparison with the continued demoralization of any potential anti-Taliban elements unless they receive serious and immediate protection from U.S.-NATO forces.

In other words, Obama is facing the same decision on Afghanistan that Bush faced in late 2006 in deciding to surge in Iraq.

In both places, the deterioration of the military situation was not the result of "drift," but of considered policies that seemed reasonable, cautious and culturally sensitive at the time, but ultimately turned out to be wrong.

Which is evidently what Obama now thinks of the policy choice he made on March 27.

He is to be commended for reconsidering. But it is time he acted like a president and decided. Afghanistan is his. He's used up his envelopes.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Senator Harry Reid’s deceptive course of action in expediting his own version of a health care reform plan is disgusting. SHOW US THE BILL before any votes are taken! Reid’s underhanded tactic eliminates the opportunity for public debate and scrutiny, which flies in the face of our legislative process.

Whether you call it a public option, an opt-out, a trigger, or a co-op, the fact is they all put us on the road to government run health care. It's deceptive to camouflage it with euphemisms, but let Ann Coulter do what she does best -- write about it. From World Net Daily:

I'll Pass On 'Opting Out'
by Ann Coulter. October 28, 2009

The Democrats' all-new "opt out" idea for health-care reform is the latest fig leaf for a total government takeover of the health-care system.

Democrats tell us they've been trying to nationalize health care for 65 years, but the first anyone heard of the "opt out" provision was about a week ago. They keep changing the language so people can't figure out what's going on.

The most important fact about the "opt out" scheme allegedly allowing states to decline government health insurance is that a state can't "opt out" of paying for it. All 50 states will pay for it. A state legislature can only opt out of allowing its own citizens to receive the benefits of a federal program they're paying for.

It's like a movie theater offering a "money back guarantee" and then explaining, you don't get your money back, but you don't have to stay and watch the movie if you don't like it. That's not what most people are thinking when they hear the words "opt out." The term more likely to come to mind is "scam."

While congressional Democrats act indignant that Republicans would intransigently oppose a national health care plan that now magnanimously allows states to "opt out," other liberals are being cockily honest about the "opt out" scheme.

Andrew Sullivan gloats on his blog, "Imagine Republicans in state legislatures having to argue and posture against an affordable health insurance plan for the folks, as O'Reilly calls them, while evil liberals provide it elsewhere."

But the only reason government health insurance will be more "affordable" than private health insurance is that taxpayers will be footing the bill. That's something that can't be opted out of under the "opt out" plan.

Which brings us right back to the question of whether the government or the free market provides better services at better prices. There are roughly 1 million examples of the free market doing a better job and the government doing a worse job. In fact, there is only one essential service the government does better: Keeping Dennis Kucinich off the streets.

So, naturally, liberals aren't sure. In Democratic circles, the jury's still out on free-market economics. It's not settled science like global warming or Darwinian evolution. But in the meantime, they'd like to spend trillions of dollars to remake our entire health-care system on a European socialist model.

Sometimes the evidence for the superiority of the free market is hidden in liberals' own obtuse reporting.

In the past few years, the New York Times has indignantly reported that doctors' appointments for Botox can be obtained much faster than appointments to check on possibly cancerous moles. The paper's entire editorial staff was enraged by this preferential treatment for Botox patients, with the exception of a strangely silent Maureen Dowd.

As the Times reported: "In some dermatologists' offices, freer-spending cosmetic patients are given appointments more quickly than medical patients for whom health insurance pays fixed reimbursement fees."

As the kids say: Duh.

This is the problem with all third-party payor systems – which is already the main problem with health care in America and will become inescapable under universal health care.

Not only do the free-market segments of medicine produce faster appointments and shorter waiting lines, but they also produce more innovation and price drops. Blindly pursuing profits, other companies are working overtime to produce cheaper, better alternatives to Botox. The war on wrinkles is proceeding faster than the war on cancer, declared by President Nixon in 1971.

In 1960, 50 percent of all health-care spending was paid out of pocket directly by the consumer. By 1999, only 15 percent of health-care spending was paid for by the consumer. The government's share had gone from 24 percent to 46 percent. At the same time, IRS regulations made it a nightmare to obtain private health insurance.

The reason you can't buy health insurance as easily and cheaply as you can buy car insurance – or a million other products and services available on the free market – is that during World War II, FDR imposed wage and price controls. Employers couldn't bid for employees with higher wages, so they bid for them by adding health insurance to the overall compensation package.

Although employees were paying for their own health insurance in lower wages and salaries, their health insurance premiums never passed through their bank accounts, so it seemed like employer-provided health insurance was free.

Employers were writing off their employee insurance plans as a business expense, but when the IRS caught on to what employers were doing, they tried to tax employer-provided health insurance as wages. But, by then, workers liked their "free" health insurance, voters rebelled, and the IRS backed down.

So now, employer-provided health insurance is subsidized not only by the employees themselves through lower wages and salaries, but also by all taxpayers who have to make up the difference for this massive tax deduction.

How many people are stuck in jobs they hate and aren't good at, rather than going out and doing something useful, because they need the health insurance from their employers? I'm not just talking about MSNBC anchors – I mean throughout the entire economy.

Almost everything wrong with our health care system comes from government interference with the free market. If the health care system is broken, then fix it. Don't try to invent a new one premised on all the bad ideas that are causing problems in the first place.

Ann Coulter, well-known for her TV appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author.
Get Ann's new book GUILTY: LIBERAL 'VICTIMS' AND THEIR ASSAULT ON AMERICA here

For voicing her opinion and defending her country, a hard working Mother has been vilified by her co-workers and her employer. What kind of a country have we become when these kinds of attacks happen time after time?

This time it is not a powerful news station, it's an older woman who has paid her dues, raised a family with a son in our Military, and is fortunate in today's economy to have a job. It is an admirable job, too, helping and assisting society at the Red Cross, which has apparently forgotten why they were established in 1881 by Clara Barton, after her diligent aid to servicemen during the Civil War. How ironic!

This was supposed to be "the end of racism". This was the president who was going to heal racism, when, in fact, he has made it worse [as is usual with a liberal administration], but this is far and above anything we have ever seen in our history.

It cannot go unnoticed that this administration is benefiting from an adoring press [except ONE], that goes out of their way to protect and support everything coming out of the White House. It has received nothing close to what President George Bush received from the press and the left leaning American public.

But now the opposite is happening today. All of a sudden you cannot speak out against the president, you cannot oppose the president, and you can certainly not support the opposition. Is this our free America? What would Martin Luther King think of today's America?

Please feel free to leave your comments for Jason's Mother. One can feel awfully alone out there today.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Harry Reid's new scheme using the disguised 'opt out' for States has more loopholes than a swiss cheese sandwich. Two things to consider: 1. You cannot compete with the governement, and 2. Since the government has bankrupt Medicare, they clearly cannot be trusted to run health care, which is 1/6 of our economy.

After 13 days of secret, closed-door negotiations on health care legislation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced Monday that he had reached an agreement with Senators Chris Dodd (D-MT) and Max Baucus (D-CT), and three top administration officials. Unfortunately, Senator Reid did not tell the American people much else.

Even many lawmakers remain in the dark regarding the outcome of this "secret deal that Senator Reid wants to get passed and signed into law 'this year,'" writes Heritage Senate Relations expert Brian Darling. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, summed it up: "It will be a thousand-page, trillion-dollar bill that raises premiums, raises taxes and slashes Medicare for our seniors to create new government spending programs. That's not reform."

Even as some of the final details of the bill do go public, it is likely that lawmakers won't know in advance entirely what it is they are voting on. This is because the legislation the Senate Finance Committee "agreed" to -- all 1,502 pages of it -- is the most massive piece of legislation ever introduced by Congress.

But length isn't the only record the "America's Healthy Future Act of 2009" claims, as Heritage health policy analyst Ed Haislmaier notes. "For the first time in fifteen years, [Congress] has set a new all-time division record for gigantic, unintelligible, unaffordable, over-regulatory, federal legislation."

What we do know about Reid's 'secret deal'

Although Senator Reid did not go into great detail about the health care "reform" legislation, he did mention that bill includes a government-run health insurance "option" that would "compete" against private health plans.

In an attempt to gain much-needed support from skeptical moderates in both parties, liberals have added a new twist to the "public option": a provision allowing states to opt out of the program. This would require states to pass legislation by 2014 rejecting participation in the federal government run plan.

Owcharenko explains why this "opt-out" model is just another government-run plan that is guaranteed to fail:

States can only opt-out of the government-run plan, not the entire bill. But the rest of the bill contains hundreds of provisions, such as the expansion of Medicaid, which will place major financial burdens on the states.

It is still a government-run plan because the government will require non-participating states to meet federal conditions. These government-determined conditions could include the creation of state-level public options that mirror the federal plan.

States will likely select the public "option" because of the bureaucracy and enormous administrative complexity required for a state opt-out. Federal conditions will limit states' ability to create alternatives.

State innovation will suffer under the massive health care proposal's employer and individual mandates, and government micromanagement of an industry that represents one-sixth of our economy.

So even though the states would be able to "opt out" of the government-run health insurance program, the federal government will make it very difficult to do so. And for the few states that do succeed in withdrawing, the government will still dominate their health care systems.

A true state "opt-out" provision would allow states to opt out of the bill in its entirety, argues Owcharenko. "Any other opt-out is just another shell game that is intended to appear as a concession but in reality provides for greater federal control and blocks much needed structural changes."

Has it been only a year ago? Because of the turmoil over the last year, it seems like a lifetime. During that time, because of historic changes being forced on our country, it occurred to me that I should make a list, but it was too chilling and hard to face. We cannot lose sight of what has happened, or it will surely be repeated as time passes.

From the GOPUSA web site (hat tip Suzete007) is an excellent piece written by Thomas Sowell. Not only is he soothing to listen to, he writes with great passion and knowledge. I admire his no nonsense, pick-yourself-by-your-bootstraps kind of belief, and his own struggle for greatness.

Dismantling Americaby Thomas Sowell, October 27, 2009

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.

---

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is http://www.tsowell.com/.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

In a report from the AP, "A government-sponsored public option for health care lives, though it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different moniker", House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday. The speaker said the "competitive option" idea emerged during her closed-door roundtable at the Sunrise Senior Center with advocates of seniors and others who work with older populations. Wasserman Schultz suggested the term might be here to stay.

The Libs really have contempt for the American people, especially for Seniors lately. Does she really think people are that stupid, they they will accept government takeover of 1/6 of our economy by euphemistically changing the name, and then admitting it? Holy crap!

No Matter What You Call It, It’s Still Just Government-Run Health CareOctober 27, 2009

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the health care legislation he is drafting will include a government-run health insurance plan, or as many on the left like to call it “the public option.” The new wrinkle that Reid has thrown into the proposal is an “opt out” clause which would require states to pass legislation by 2014 rejecting participation in the federal government run plan. None of the committees in the House or Senate ever even voted on this new opt out scheme. But that does not really matter. Whether it is first implemented through a co-op, or a trigger, or an opt out, the end goal is the same: government-run health care for all Americans.

The Co-op Co-opt: Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) have both pushed slightly different plans they both call co-ops. However, they both share the same fundamental flaws: advantageous federal funding and regulation designed to tilt the playing field in their direction. Heritage fellows Edmund Haislmaier, Dennis Smith, and Nina Owcharenko have explained why this model is guaranteed to fail: “Simply calling some form of a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) a “cooperative,” for instance, would be only another type of public plan in disguise. … One need look no further than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to see how GSEs can distort the market and leave taxpayers with huge liabilities. Decades of market distortions generated by their implicit government backing, compounded by the effects of repeated political meddling by Congress, put those GSEs at the very epicenter of the mortgage market collapse that triggered the current financial crisis and recession.”

The Trigger Trap: A trigger is a legislative tool that would put in place automatic benchmarks that if not met, would immediately unleash the government-run system into the market. For example, if 95% of Americans as defined by the bill, don’t have adequate health coverage by a certain date, the public option would be “triggered.” What a trigger does is hold off the tough decision until future, uncertain circumstances. The public option would essentially become law today, but not go into effect until an undetermined time when economic conditions could be even worse. Had Congress enacted a trigger to save Clintoncare, the trigger would have forced states to implement HMOs at exactly the time everyone was moving away from that overly rigid version of managed care. We don’t want to repeat that mistake. It is a travesty of democracy because it allows legislators to vote for a plan now, but passes the blame for the catastrophic consequences onto their successors.

Throughout the legislative process the White House has coyly denied that the establishment of a government run health plan was essential to their health care plan. But in 2003, President Barack Obama told the AFL-CIO: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. … And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.” Opt out, the trigger, and co ops will not get to government run health care immediately. They will all take time to develop. But no matter what road they try and bring Americans down, the destination is always the same: everybody in, nobody out; that is, was, and always will be Obama’s ultimate goal.

Britain’s climate chief Lord Stern says a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

After a lifetime of education, raising a family, working long hours, and playing by the rules, Americans prepare and look forward to their golden years -- or at least that was the plan. This administration is doing their darndest to destroy these plans.

The first attack was destroy the economy, and the progression is dependency on government for health care, energy, income, and the simple task of keeping a roof over their heads. The hope is that it will happen so fast, you don't see it, after all "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." Thank you Rahn 'Dead Fish' Emanuel.

Seniors, more than anyone else, are under attack with the threat of government run health care - those who had already paid into the system. Dick Morris writes further:

The more fiscal details of the health care bills emerge, the more appalling they seem. The Senate Finance Committee bill includes a broad provision taxing all manner of medical devices. This tax includes such frivolous luxuries as pacemakers, stents, artificial heart valves, defibrillators, automated wheelchairs, mechanized artificial limbs, replacement hips and knees, surgical gurneys, laparoscopic equipment, and the like.

President Obama is planning to reduce the cost of medical care by taxing it!

The most recent Gallup Poll reflected that 49% of respondents said they believed that the Obamacare plan will increase their health care costs. Only about 20% said it would lower them. It is taxes like these that substantiate this kind of concern.

The origins of this new medical device tax are troubling as well.

The medical device industry had its day at the White House as did the insurance industry, the drug makers, the nurses, and the doctors. In turn, each group heard the White House request that they come up with voluntary cuts in their health care costs and support Obama's proposed changes in return for assurances that Congress would not impose deeper cuts (or, in the case of the doctors, that it would actually rescind cuts already scheduled under current statutes).

But, unlike all these other groups, the medical device industry refused the deal. This posture enraged the tyrants in the White House who vowed to punish the industry with cuts imposed by Congress. The result was a decision by the revenue-hungry Senate Finance Committee to extract billions in funds from the industry.

The legislation does not work like a sales or excise tax. Rather it follows the model of the punitive tobacco settlement imposed on cigarette companies in the 90s. It assesses an industry-wide payment which firms must make in proportion to their market share. It bars the them from passing along the cost of the assessment by charging more for certain basic products, but allows them to raise the price of others to raise the funds for the fee.

So, the result will be that virtually every piece of advanced surgical equipment will be subject to a price increase to meet the levy from Washington. No matter that these devices often make the difference between life and death and that, in effect, taxing them raises the cost of vital treatments. The vengeful White House will have its pound of flesh from the medical device industry for daring to be independent and to refuse to knuckle down to Administration pressure!

This tax, imposed in a spirit of haughty arrogance, falls on totally inappropriate objects. Valves, prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, hearing aids, and such are essential therapies that make life longer, better, and less painful. To tax them makes no sense. Except in the world of sharp elbows and interest group politics that grips this take-no-prisoners and show-no-mercy White House.

Ronald Reagan And The Fall Of The Berlin Wall: Reflections From Yesterday, Lessons For Today - Click Here

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Get Dick's new book CATASTROPHE here.Congress phone/fax list here.

Monday, October 26, 2009

In a town hall setting during last year's presidential campaign, Obama touted that if we want to know who he is, look at the people who surround him. He rattled off several middle of the roaders, which we know today is hogwash.

Well, let's look at the people who surround this man: Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres, Bernardine Dohrn, and presently members of his administration, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunn, Van Jones, Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanual, Carol Browner, John Holdren, to name a few left wing radicals.

We are on the road to tyranny, and an excellent piece by Joseph Ashby in American Thinker writes:

When Tyranny Callsby Joseph Ashby, October 23, 2009

In explanation for her "yes" vote on the Max Baucus created health care bill, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe said:

"Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls."

Senator Snowe is probably right. History is calling. What she has wrong is history's message. History is calling with the warning that tyranny is at our doorstep.

The tyranny that threatens us is not the same brand as the violent police states of the 20th century. Tyranny in America will look more like the misguided utopianism that has taken England from being the greatest, freest nation on earth to the frail remains of a world power it is today.

History called on England in the aftermath of World War II. During the war, the Axis Powers threatened England's very existence. In such dire circumstances it became necessary for the entire country to work under central direction to achieve its military objectives. However, after the Allied Forces retook Europe, England believed that wartime-style government planning should continue. The government proceeded to dismantle what, in many ways, was once the freest economy in world history.

Now, over 60 years later, we see the results. England -- the leader of the industrial revolution, the empire over which the sun never set, the parent of so many of the great modern republics -- has descended into doldrums of mediocrity.

The permanency of that decline was put into perspective by a recent New York Times article. The article laments the failure of Socialist Parties in countries across Europe. At first glance the report leaves the reader a little stunned at the NYT's open sorrow over the failure of European leftism. But a closer look reveals a bleak reality. The article states:

Europe's center-right parties have embraced many ideas of the left: generous welfare benefits, nationalized health care, sharp restrictions on carbon emissions, the ceding of some sovereignty to the European Union. But they have won votes by promising to deliver more efficiently than the left, while working to lower taxes, improve financial regulation, and grapple with aging populations.

It's not that socialism is in decline in Europe; it's that socialism no longer has any opposition.

The things that made Europe (particularly England) great have been swallowed up by government's unrelenting appetite. No longer do politicians seek office as protectors of life, liberty and property -- they seek only to run the oppressive bureaucratic state more efficiently.

The catalyst to this permanent leftist political climate is health care. Other government programs are specifically targeted to the poor, the aged or other relatively small groups. Social Security, for example, has become a political sledge hammer against those who try to reform it. But Social Security recipients make up only a minority of voters at any given time.

If Obama's health care overhaul passes, it will reach across all age demographics and into nearly every income bracket. Health care legislation will quickly gain a political force surpassing Social Security. Once that happens, the only way to win elections will be to promise not to touch government health care. Every politician will have to accept and even endorse issues that are now only championed by the far left.

Only such a weighty political payoff would prompt reelection-obsessed politicians to so thoroughly ignore opinion polls. Fox News' latest numbers show an overwhelming split of 54% against 35% for the current health care proposals. Despite the sour public opinion, the legislation continues to progress through congress. The Democrats are willing to lose battles in polling and even the next election because they believe they are about to win the war.

The history calling Senator Snowe agrees. If health care passes, it will not represent the beginning of the end -- the beginning took place long ago. But it may signal the end of the beginning, the end of the period in which liberty has its chance to beat back statism.

American freedom has been bent, and bent, and bent for nearly 100 hundred years. Like post World War II socialization of England, health care may prove to be America's breaking point.

Back in June, long before the August rallys, tea parties, townhalls, and the March on DC, Congress passed the Cap & Trade - barely, after back room threats and the total uproar over the Republican 'Gang of Eight'. Lest we never forget who they were, here's the list to remember come their next election (click to enlarge), because without their vote, it would not have passed:

If the Republicans had voted with their constituents, we would not have this threat hanging over our heads, but it is back now in the Senate. Like government run health care, it's not about saving the earth, it's about government control, and this time it will be every aspect of your life. Not to mention, Cap and Trade is the final straw that will destroy our economy, and push Americans over the edge -- in need of government hand outs. The Heritage Foundation writes:

The Transparent Costs of Cap and TradeOctober 26, 2009

On June 26th of this year, the House of Representatives narrowly passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. More commonly known as the Waxman-Markey bill (named after bill sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), the 1,427-page bill tries to control global temperatures by creating a “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions, and then hoping that greenhouse emitters would “trade” emissions permits meet the cap. Under the scheme, the government would issue fewer allowances each year, causing the cost of the permits to rise. The cost of these allowances is a tax, and under Waxman-Markey, the tax would rise each year. As with any tax, it will ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy and product prices.

On August 6th, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis released a report detailing the economic costs of the Waxman-Markey. Since energy is the lifeblood of the American economy, 85 percent of which comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels, the Waxman-Markey bill’s arbitrary and severe restrictions on the current energy supply and infrastructure will not only have direct impact on consumers’ budgets through higher electric bills and gasoline prices, but also cause unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production. CDA estimates that Waxman-Markey legislation would cost the average family-of-four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and a produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035.

Surely our study did not produce the results Waxman and Markey expected. Earlier this month Reps. Waxman and Markey sent us, and a number of other institutions, a letter asking us to answer 33 methodological questions about the analytical techniques used in our study. We were delighted by Waxman and Markey’s letter since it is just the kind of thoughtful investigative work our lawmakers should do more often. For example, they asked if our model took into account an increase in private sector investments in research and development that would be sparked by the legislation and a new carbon market. Answer: It did. Our model incorporates both short and long-run responses to higher energy prices.

Waxman also asked if our model quantified any benefits of avoided climate change. Answer: It didn’t. Because according to estimates based on IPCC data, the Waxman-Markey bill would only impact global temperatures by .044 degrees C (about .09 degrees F) by 2050. There simply are no economic benefits from such a minuscule impact.

Waxman-Markey did not send their questions to some notable organizations that have conducted analysis of their bill like the Congressional Budget Office and the Brooking Institution. After we requested they do so, we have since received word that Waxman and Markey sent the same letter to the CBO. They had previously included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy Information Administration (EIA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), CRA International, the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), and the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC).

In the interests of an honest and transparent debate about the costs of cap and trade the Heritage Foundation has devoted a space on our website, http://www.heritage.org/, where we have posted our answers in their entirety. We have formally invited the other organizations who were asked these questions to allow us to post their responses as well, in the interest of full transparency.

Let’s hope the Waxman-Markey questionnaire signals that a serious debate can now take place. American families deserve to be kept fully apprised of how Congress intends to act, and how those actions will most likely affect their pocketbooks, their jobs, and their lives.

More proof that the tides are turning, and we cannot continue to send weak, watered down Republicans to Congress. Tim Pawlenty, sitting Governor of Minnesota, has just endorsed Doug Hoffman of the Conservative Party against the left wing liberal Republican candidate in the NY-23 district run for Congress.

This is definitely a message the Conservatives do not need the Republican party. Erick Erickson is breaking the story in RedState:

What makes this stand out even more than the Palin endorsement is that Pawlenty has not been seen as diverging with the Republican establishment. He’s not seen as the maverick that Palin is.

But Pawlenty has a huge amount of stature inside the Republican establishment, more so than Palin. That he is now willing to come out in favor of Hoffman is going to resonate among the Republican establishment in ways Palin’s endorsement will not.

And it now sets up battle lines for 2012. I still don’t think Palin is going to run, but even were she, we now have two candidates, a former Governor and Vice Presidential candidate and a sitting Governor and potential 2012 candidate breaking with the establishment in favor of the Republican base.

“We cannot send more politicians to Washington who wear the Republican jersey on the campaign trail, but then vote like Democrats in Congress on issues like card check and taxes. After reviewing the candidates’ positions, I’m endorsing Doug Hoffman in New York’s special election. Doug understands the federal government needs to quit spending so much, will vote against tax increases, and protect key values like the right to vote in private in union elections.”

Now we’re going to have to ask where the other 2012 candidates are. Who else is willing to be brave and bold. Who else will defy the beltway and stand with the heartland? Conservative activists have legitimately made New York’s 23rd Congressional District a Hill to Die On. The GOP establishment must know that it will either win with us or lose without us.

And now we are seeing who is willing to stand with us on this Hill. Tim Pawlenty, today, proves he is willing to put principle above party. Tim Pawlenty is willing to stand with the Republican Base, the tea party activists, and the Conservative Movement.

When 2012 rolls around, Palin and Pawlenty’s boldness will be remembered. Which of the other potential candidates will side with conservatives over the beltway establishment?

And we should also remember Fred Thompson, the Club for Growth, Dick Armey, Rick Santorum, Steve Forbes and other real conservatives — all of whom have gone all in for Doug Hoffman.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Don't let the FOX News diversion spin work. Obama definitely does lose sleep over this, but America is losing sleep about the government takeover. Government health care takeover will be going on behind closed doors this week, and America has to be engaged.

Healthcare 'Reform' is just another Redistribution of Wealth scheme, and they are going to get this passed by hook or by crook. Either way it's underhanded, and the only chance they have had to do this in 100 years.

Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum writes:

What's In and What's Out of Health Care Legislationby Phyllis Schlafly, October 23, 2009

As liberals rush ObamaCare through Congress, let's review the disparity between promises and text. Joe Wilson's declaration "You lie!" is ringing truer with each passing day.

Barack Obama promised "transparency" and giving the public five days to read the bill, but Senator Jim Bunning's (R-KY) amendment to require the bill, along with a final Congressional Budget Office score, to be posted online 72 hours before the vote, was defeated. Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) have been trying to get the House to agree to post the bill 72 hours before the vote, but while most Republicans have signed on, the Nancy Pelosi leadership is unwilling.

The Democrats still hope to rush the bill through unread. The 1,100-page Stimulus bill was posted online only 13 hours before the vote, and the 1,200-page Cap and Trade bill was posted only 15 hours before the vote.

Obama promised that the health-care bill would not cover illegal aliens, but Senator Chuck Grassley's (R-IA) amendment to require immigrants to prove their identity with a photo I.D. was rejected.

Obama promised that if you like your current health insurance you won't have to change it, but Senator John Cornyn's (R-TX) amendment to assure present insurance owners that they won't have to change their coverage, and that they can keep the coverage they have with their current employer without government driving up cost, was defeated.

Obama's appointment of 34 czars includes a Health Care Czar, but Senator John Ensign's (R-NV) amendment to require any health care czar to be subject to the constitutional Senate confirmation process was defeated. Obama's new Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, defends removing organs from terminally ill patients and from deceased persons even though they did not consent to be organ donors.

Obama promised that "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," and his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to divert attention from this bold lie by obfuscating the Hyde Amendment. But the Hyde Amendment is not a law; it's a one-year-at-a-time rider that applies only to current Medicaid programs, and would not apply to the health-care law.

The Democrats five times (twice in Senate committees, three times in House committees) defeatedamendments to prohibit the health-care plan from spending federal money or requiring health insurance plans to cover abortions. They also defeated Senator Orrin Hatch's (R-UT) amendment to respect the conscience rights of health-care workers who do not want to perform abortions because of moral or religious objections.

One amendment that did pass was Senator Maria Cantwell's (D-WA) amendment that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to define cost-effective care for each medical condition and to punish doctors who treat high-cost patients with complex conditions. That has been Obama's goal from the beginning and will inevitably lead to the "death panels" Sarah Palin warned about.

Former Senator Tom Daschle, who was scheduled to be Health and Human Services Secretary or Health Care Czar until he had to bow out, said that the law should be written in generalities so the bureaucrats can fill in the details. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and a key Obama health care adviser, may be behind the Stimulus legislation that will send "embedded clinical-decision support" to doctors via computer to warn them about what is "appropriate" and "cost-effective," backed up by the threat to impose financial penalties on doctors who are not "meaningful users."

The Democrats' health-care "reform" carries a trillion-dollar price tag, will vastly increase the national debt hanging over our children and grandchildren, impose socialist control over one-sixth of our economy, and force us to obey totalitarian dictates. The mandate on employers to provide health insurance will result in lower wages and fewer jobs.

The mandate on individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, even threatening jail for those who fail to conform, amounts to a massive tax increase on individuals and families whose health insurance may lack all the new federally specified requirements.

Obama's "spread the wealth around" policy is evident in the big expansion of Medicaid combined with large cuts in Medicare. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt says that the combination of mandates to buy insurance, guaranteed issue, and community rating amounts to massive income distribution that is hidden from public view and not even debated.

Finally, we are subject to the deviousness of what House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) calls the 70 phantom amendments that were added in secret after the bill was voted out by the committee. The bill may be even worse than we think.

Of all the apologies being demanded, one deserved apology stands out above all others -- Joe Wilson. Somewhere, someone has taken the time to lay them all out all the lies (and there's are a lot of them), but it's just exasperating when I try.

The latest was Obama's condescending lie about czars having no real power, and yet he just told the world he had nothing to do with Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg setting wage control for 175 executives. Another snip off the Constitution.

The Heritage Foundation writes:

The Unaccountable Obama Czar StateOctober 23, 2009

Yesterday the United States Department of the Treasury Special Master of Compensation Kenneth Feinberg announced a wage control scheme for the 175 executives of the seven companies that have received the most funds from the taxpayer funded Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). At first the Obama administration denied any involvement in Feinberg’s decision. Politico reports:

In fact, sources within the administration say the decision to cap corporate pay was Kenneth Feinberg's, and his alone. A senior administration official tells POLITICO that Obama did not sign off on the pay master’s decision. Feinberg didn't even brief the White House on it, the official said, but he briefed Treasury officials instead.

But after yesterday’s announcement that the Federal Reserve released its own plan to control how banks compensate their employees, the New York Times reported:

The announcement was choreographed to coincide with the decision by the Obama administration this week to cut the pay of many high earners at the seven companies that received the most taxpayer help. Both decisions were announced amid growing public outrage over large pay packages at many of those companies.

So which is it? Are the new wage control schemes launched by the Pay Czar and the Fed the acts of independent experts, or are they the closely controlled policy decisions of the Obama White House?

The answer to that question goes to the core of the very real constitutional problems that the proliferation of czars in the Obama administration creates. Obama appointed Feinberg to be his Pay Czar without any input from the American people and without any approval from Congress. Heritage fellow Matthew Spalding explained the problem in his recent testimony to Congress:

The issue is not whether the proliferation of “czars” amounts to a usurpation of power by the executive branch. Rather, the fundamental issue is how the rise of modern administrative government has put us in an unsolvable dilemma: whether policy should be made by technical experts, insulated from public accountability and control, or whether policy should be made by our elected representatives in Congress and the executive branch. The rise of government by bureaucrats–due to the delegation of power from Congress to administrative agencies, combined with the removal of those agencies from the President’s control–has given rise to efforts by Presidents from both parties to get the bureaucratic state under control through various mechanisms. The rise of “czars” in the current administration is just another manifestation–albeit, an unfortunate one–of this phenomenon.

If the American people did want to hold the Fed and the Pay Czar accountable for their wage control decisions, right now there is no way for them to do so.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

For those who mocked and savagely attacked her, take a look -- Sarah Palin is enjoying the fruits of success quietly and with poise. She has more influence than ever before, and it is growing in strength.

Using a social network, rather than the brutal media, she has put across ideas and opinions that have resonated the American people, her lastest being the endorsement of Doug Hoffman running against the pseudo Republican Dede Scozzafava. She is standing by her conservative principles, and the RINO Republicans are 'all shook up'.

Melissa Clouthier writes a compelling piece in PajamasMadia:

Sarah Palin Strikes Backby Melissa Clouthier, October 24, 2009

“You wouldn’t believe how badly they treated her,” an insider friend told me of Sarah Palin not too long ago. I assumed this person meant the Republican establishment. One can only imagine what they’ve been up to.

The votes of every member of Congress affect every American, so it’s important for all of us to pay attention to this important Congressional campaign in upstate New York. I am very pleased to announce my support for Doug Hoffman in his fight to be the next Representative from New York’s 23rd Congressional district. It’s my honor to endorse Doug and to do what I can to help him win, including having my political action committee, SarahPAC, donate to his campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law.

Our nation is at a crossroads, and this is once again a “time for choosing.”

Palin has been sending a couple messages recently. First, she has, since stepping down as governor, started to communicate with the people not through the press but around the press. In other words, she’s speaking directly to the people through social media. She has had a couple well-timed and well-placed op-eds that have helped define policy arguments. However, most of the time she’s talked to the people via social media. (It should be noted that she’s been silent on Twiiter for some time — something I hope she’ll change soon.) This has had the benefit of letting the press know that she does not need them. Rather than go the Obama route and deny what is perceived as the one “enemy” to her aims, Sarah denies nearly everyone. And why not? The press trashed her with risible lies. Why give a dying breed ratings when she can reach the people herself?

Second, Sarah Palin has a massive army fundraising for her. It has been interesting to contemplate how she’s going to use that power. The GOP power brokers have certainly seemed disinterested in having her run for president, but they are very interested in her money and endorsements. The only problem is that they have, to use a vulgar turn of phrase, pissed in their Cheerios. They underestimated her star power. They misjudged her almost as badly as the left did; they thought she was just some feather-headed lightweight who would be nice arm candy for John McCain. She’d win the women vote because women are so stupid; ovaries are enough to win them over was the idea. Turns out that Sarah Palin was formidable because of the strength of her ideals, not just because of the strength of her beauty. And don’t forget the strength of her spine. This gross miscalculation has put the Republican Party at odds with their one star candidate.

The Republican establishment made another miscalculation last year. They underestimated the resolve and force of the tea party movement. These folks are ticked. They are angrier at the Republican establishment than they are at President Obama and his Marxist minions. In fact, this trouble was brewing all through the presidential campaign and even before. It all started, really, with the notion of “compassionate conservative” — an idea both insulting and inherently false. Conservatism is compassionate. Conservatism is something to be proud of, not something to hide.

So the Republicans have seemed as stunned with the tea partiers as the tea partiers are stunned at their party. The grassroots folks have had it. They’re tired of being disrespected. They’re tired of being told to pipe down and go along to get along when the candidates the party picks stink and then lose.

That brings us around to the election in New York. Local party people decided that a liberal woman would be just the ticket. The national party decided to second and third that notion. They chose identity over ideology. (This is something the party looks inclined to do in California in two races, by the way.) Ironically, some have viewed Sarah Palin as a horrible candidate because identity politics was involved in her selection. Well, the old establishment might have wanted her for her ovaries, but they got more than they bargained for in Sarah Palin. She actually believes something.

With her decision to endorse Doug Hoffman, the conservative (not Republican) candidate, Sarah Palin sends the Republican Party a very clear message. She will be using her considerable fundraising ability to fund candidates who ideologically match what it used to mean to be a Republican. Since the Republican Party, from its toes to its nose, has difficulty identifying candidates with those credentials, she’ll help them do it.

The Republican Party has a choice. They can continue to antagonize those who vote them into office or they can start paying attention. They mistakenly buy the D.C. bubble philosophy that moderation is the way to find good candidates. What they’re seeing is a base willing to lose if the Republican Party doesn’t change its ways.

A friend on Twitter said to me last night: “Sarah Palin has the base, she has to find a way to reach out to the moderates and independents.” I retorted: “The Republican party might have the moderates and independents (which I question since those people chose Obama over the moderate McCain), they have to find a way to win the base.” The base won’t be discounted any longer and they have found their champion in a very powerful Sarah Palin.